[s-cars] short shifting to save first?

[Dave Burig]

Scott throttled back:
>> WRT first gear issues.  I solved that problem for many of my customers
years
ago.  Short shift out of first (do you really need a boost controller if you
*know* first gear is an issue?).<<

Isn't the problem with first gear a result of the amount of torque being
transmitted through the transmission?  If this is the case, short shifting
doesn't solve any problems, as the peak torque from our beloved beasties is
generated pretty low in the RPM band. Or am I missing something?

DB



-----Original Message-----
From: s-car-list-bounces at audifans.com
[mailto:s-car-list-bounces at audifans.com]On Behalf Of QSHIPQ at aol.com
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 10:19 AM
To: kirby.a.smith at verizon.net
Cc: s-car-list at audifans.com
Subject: Re: [s-cars] Fuzz logic vs adaptive learning

I don't believe it's premature to argue the point at all.  More plots in a
three dimensional map makes a more sophisticated controller by definition.
You
might be able to argue that more plots (output) isn't necessary to
acceptable
function, but that would require that the number of inputs are the same.
They
aren't.

WRT first gear issues.  I solved that problem for many of my customers years
ago.  Short shift out of first (do you really need a boost controller if you
*know* first gear is an issue?).  WRT detonation, when you hear it Kirby,
the
damage is already done.  When you hear it, that means that the computer has
already taken all the steps to retard the timing and trim the boost.  In a
boost
controller, retarding the timing and trimming the boost are oxymorons.  The
motronic may retard the timing, but that just means the controller adds more
boost.  I Hope your radio isn't on.  No driver is a good wastegate
controller.

HTH and my o2

Scott Justusson

In a message dated 1/26/2004 8:48:22 AM Central Standard Time,
kirby.a.smith at verizon.net writes:
Thanks, Scott, for your insight.

I think it premature to argue that Motronic is more sophisticated than
the A'pexi, for example, without our knowing just what functions are
embedded in the A'pexi.  A large-valued n-dimensional table is not
necessarily more sophisticated than an n-dimensional high-order
function.  Unfortunately, I don't know what is in the guts of the A'pexi
programming.  If you have some specific knowledge of the A'pexi inner
workings, feel free to enlighten us.  For now, I will accept that it
cannot know, or at least react to, engine degradation, but as a WG
controller for a functional engine (running Hoppen Stage 1), IME it does
very nicely.

Do I agree that optimized Motronic code with your favorite waste gate
valve (whatever that is) can do as well or better with less engine risk
-- Yes.  But to argue for engine protection over tranny protection is
short sighted, IMHO.  It would cost me a lot more for a replacement
tranny than a valve job.  And burned valves would require a lot of
detonation, which I would hear early and my right foot would then become
the overriding WG controller.  Now when running with an open exhaust in
competition, I agree the driver is not a good WG controller.

kirby
_______________________________________________
S-CAR-List mailing list
S-CAR-List at audifans.com
http://www.audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/s-car-list